Short answer. Yes, if it relates to the same transaction. Section 8 of Rule 6 defines a cross-claim as any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject of the original action or a counterclaim in it, covering all or part of the original claim.
What the law says
A cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein. Such cross-claim may cover all or part of the original claim.
Rule 6, Section 8 — Cross. Read the full provision →
What distinguishes a cross-claim
A cross-claim, unlike a counterclaim against an opposing party, is directed at a co-party — someone on the same side of the case, such as a fellow defendant. Section 8 defines it as any claim by one party against a co-party, but with an important limitation the counterclaim definition lacks: it must arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein. A typical example is one co-defendant seeking indemnity or contribution from another over the same incident that got them both sued in the first place, such as a driver and a vehicle owner blamed for the same collision.
The relatedness requirement
That transactional link is the defining feature of a cross-claim. Unlike a counterclaim, which Section 6 defines without any such tie to the original dispute's subject matter, a cross-claim can only be asserted against a co-party if it grows out of the same transaction or occurrence already at issue in the case — either the original action itself or a counterclaim that has been filed within it. A grievance against a co-party that has nothing to do with the transaction already before the court, however genuine, does not qualify as a cross-claim and would have to be pursued as a separate action instead.
Scope: all or part of the original claim
Section 8 also clarifies that a cross-claim may cover all or part of the original claim. This means a co-defendant is not limited to seeking indemnification or contribution proportional to shared liability — the cross-claim can assert an interest that overlaps entirely with, or only partially with, the claim originally brought in the action, so long as the underlying transactional connection is present. That flexibility lets co-parties resolve their own competing or overlapping exposure to the plaintiff within the same proceeding, rather than needing a separate lawsuit between themselves once the original case is over.
Why litigating it together matters
Keeping the cross-claim inside the original case, rather than filing it separately later, lets one court resolve who among the co-parties ultimately bears the loss using the same evidence already before it. It also avoids the risk of inconsistent findings — one proceeding concluding a defendant is liable to the plaintiff, and a second, separate proceeding reaching a different conclusion about how that same liability should be shared between the co-defendants themselves.